THE PERFECT "SCANDAL": BENGHAZI

June 16, 2013

On the night of September 11, 2012, an armed group attacked a diplomatic
post in the city of Benghazi in eastern Libya. The next morning a CIA annex was
attacked. Out of these two attacks four United States citizens were killed
including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. According to a November, 2012 Wall
Street Journal article (quoted by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic,
May 13, 2013):

“The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to
officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials
evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the
State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic
cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.”

On March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution
1973 authorizing humanitarian intervention in Libya. It endorsed “Member
States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to
take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the
country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any
form on any part of Libyan territory….” Five Security Council members abstained
from support of this resolution: Brazil, China, Germany, India, and Russia.

Passage of the resolution was followed by a NATO-led air war on targets in
that country. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established in 1949 as
a military alliance to defend Europe from any possible aggression initiated by
the Soviet Union. If words mattered, NATO should have dissolved when the Soviet
Union collapsed.

The United States, so concerned for the human rights of people in the
Persian Gulf and Middle East, including in Libya, was virtually silent as
non-violent revolutions overthrew dictatorial regimes in Tunisia and Egypt
earlier in 2011. The United States continued to support regimes in Bahrain and
Yemen in the face of popular protest and violent response and remained the
primary rock-solid supporter of the state of Israel as it continued to expand
settlements in the West Bank and blockaded the transfer of goods to
Palestinians in Gaza. And, of course, in the face of growing ferment in the
Middle East and Persian Gulf for democratization not a word was said by way of
criticism of the monarchical system in Saudi Arabia.

So as the Gaddafi regime in Libya fought its last battles, leading
ultimately to the capture and assassination of the Libyan dictator, the NATO
alliance and the United States praised themselves for their support of
movements for democratization in Libya. What seemed obvious to observers except
most journalists was the fact that the overthrow of the Libyan regime, for
better or worse, could not have occurred without the massive bombing campaign
against military and civilian targets throughout Libya carried out by NATO
forces.

From the vantage point of the Benghazi crisis of September 11, 2012,
humanitarian intervention, which in Benghazi included 23 (of some 30) U.S.
representatives who were CIA operatives suggests that the attacks on U.S.
targets might have had something to do with the history of U.S interventionism
in the country. Great powers, such as the United States, continue to interfere
in the political life of small and poor countries. And, the mainstream media
continues to provide a humanitarian narrative of imperialism at
work.

The post-9/11 Benghazi story is one of Republicans irresponsibly focusing on
inter-agency squabbles and so-called contradictory Obama “talking points” after
the killings of the four U.S. representatives in Benghazi. They chose not to
address the real issue of the United States pattern of interference in the
internal affairs of Libya.

And the Obama Administration defends itself by denying its incompetence in
the matter, desperately trying to avoid disclosing the real facts in the
Benghazi story which might show that the CIA and the Ambassador’s staff were
embedded in Benghazi to interfere in the political struggles going on between
factions among the Libyan people.

As Alexander Cockburn put it well in reference to the war on Libya in The
Nation in June, 2011:

“America’s clients in Bahrain and Riyadh can watch the undignified
pantomime with a tranquil heart, welcoming this splendid demonstration that
they have nothing to fear from Obama’s fine speeches or Clinton’s references to
democratic aspirations, well aware that NATO’s warplanes and helicopters are
operating under the usual double standard--with the Western press furnishing
all appropriate services.”

If Cockburn were alive today he would have added that the Libyan operation
was about U.S. covert interventionism, anger on the part of sectors of the
Benghazi citizenship, and not about the United States encouraging “democratic
aspirations” of the Libyan people. Neither Republicans nor Democrats want to
have a conversation about U.S. interventionism but prefer to debate about a
“scandal.” The real “scandal” is the cover-up of what the U.S. was doing in
Libya.